Talk:Main Page/Archive 198

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 195 Archive 196 Archive 197 Archive 198 Archive 199 Archive 200 Archive 202

War On This Day

It is getting worse: today there are 2 entries on OTD relating to war.
Who is the warmonger that keeps submitting war items? B. Fairbairn (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

No body is. The events are chosen more-or-less arbitrarily, with only article quality being the relevant issue. Remember, just because you notice a pattern doesn't mean there is one. Your presumption that someone has done this intentionally is a very odd assumption to make, and you've provided no evidence that it has so been done. --Jayron32 13:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
You can do something about it, if you choose. Take January 22 for example. You could improve the sourcing on the following articles to make them eligible for OTD:
Please do not blame those doing a thankless task. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I concur that there isn't some hidden agenda that favours war-related items above anything else. There are a lot of articles on military history on Wikipedia, and hence plenty of quality articles related to specific days that are eligible. Pinging Howcheng, who's the main OTD curator, in case he has something to say about this. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
There's no hidden agenda. We just happen to have a lot of military history articles. As C&C says, if you want to help us feature articles on other subjects, then please improve those articles so that they're eligible for inclusion. Happy editing! howcheng {chat} 17:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Pinging Howcheng, who's the main OTD curator, in case he has something to say about this. I suppose we should ask Howcheng which pronouns said Wikipedian prefers. —⁠184.207.211.30 (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Web animation on main page

Already descending into condescension, time to close. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is the first time I've seen animation on the main page. It is really annoying. Static images are less distracting as I'm browsing Wikipedia's home page. Androsynth (talk)

Do we really need the animation there? It seems like a waste of bandwidth and, as Androsynth said, a nuisance. Animating the eruption doesn't add anything to the image.--WaltCip (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
We have a video version. We often have video on the Main Page. I think animation takes even less bandwidth but I could be wrong. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Heh. I think Wikipedians are probably the only internet users "annoyed" by a tiny, 200px wide animation. (For the record, the New York Times homepage does these a lot.) — 🦊 20:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
This user is constantly annoyed by animated popup ads on various sites PissedOff.gif but rejoices in hitting the X-box labeled 'close'
– if, providentially, there is one. – Sca (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
"I'm mildly annoyed by this thing thousands upon thousands of other people aren't bothered by. Can we immediately change this thing for me?" --Jayron32 19:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

6 million

We're almost there: will there be a special banner for this milestone? JZCL 23:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we ought to put up our own banner. Our banner should ask whether it is appropriate that the day's main page should reflect whatever articles it does. MPS1992 (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Along with a salient reminder that, although Wikipedia is not censored, that children browse Wikipedia and is this really the sort of thing we want them to be seeing on the main page.--WaltCip (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree. It is not very professional. --Westwind273 (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
"Think of the children." --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
And remember to link that phrase. Daniel Case (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
On a school day! However will we survive? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
There are also 'people using WP at work/in libraries/public places in general, those who are squeamish etc.
However, if the MP never generates 'What is WP coming to' comments, then something is going wrong. Jackiespeel (talk)

According to Special:Statistics, we are nearing a billion edits as well (OK, it may take a while to make another 70 million edits - how long might that take at the current rate?). That may not be something to jump up and down about, but could be moderately interesting. Can anyone remind me if the 6 million 'article' total includes disambiguation pages? I know it excludes redirects. Carcharoth (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Carcharoth, if I understand correctly, any page which is A. in the main namespace and B. not a redirect counts as a content page, so disambiguation pages are counted. (and also Wiktionary redirects etc., which are still counted since they're only soft redirects) Ionmars10 (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
You will be pleased to know that Six Million is a disambiguation page. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC) p.s. could we please have a banner asking for big donations or, failing that, a famous French mathematician?
Woah facts. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 22:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Presumably there will be a lovely prize? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Deaths: Bobby Brown

I am surprised that "Deaths" announcements today don't include a parenthetical mention of which Bobby Brown has died. Yes, you can click on it to find out, but is it truly sound Main Page style for a good encyclopedia to jolt readers with news that Bobby Brown is dead without an immediate reference as to which one he is? It's not poor judgment so much as complete and total thoughtlessness on someone's part. A few extra characters—Bobby Brown (footballer)—wouldn't hurt the page aesthetics that much, would it? Mason.Jones (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Space on the Main Page is at a premium, so, as a rule, any parenthetical disambiguators in article titles are omitted, leaving only the name. Even though some readers may mistake the footballer for the singer, not all will; in fact, I didn't know who the latter was before this. Furthermore, stating "(footballer)" probably wouldn't even be enough, as Wikipedia has at least five footballers with that name. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This is also being discussed at Wikipedia talk:In the news#Recent Death section and disambiguation. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, C&C. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
When I first saw this, I admit I assumed it was Bobby Brown, you know - the one without the disambiguator. But I soon realised I was wide of the mark when I got to ITN/C. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit request on Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow

Please replace:
{{#if:{{Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection/Featured picture}}||}}

With:
{{#if:{{Wikipedia:Picture of the day/On the main pages}}||}}

So KrinkleBot knows what to do on January 24, 2020. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Levy: I think you are one of the few people that will understand the effects of this. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Can you give a bit more background/rationale and I will look into it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Martin: The requested edit appears to be appropriate. Its purpose is to address days on which the featured picture section displays one of multiple images at a given time (which otherwise necessitates manual intervention to ensure that all of the relevant files are protected at the Wikimedia Commons). I see that the matter was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. —David Levy 13:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
MSGJ and David Levy, yeah, we also discussed it the last time we had multiple photos at POTD. Since then I realized that the bot owner at Commons does not need to be involved at all and that this seemingly pointless transclusion is how we make the cascade protection reach all the right places that need protection. Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection/Featured picture is an old abandoned system of protecting these images. As of now, we have to manually add these images to WP:CMP. This edit will make it so that the files are automatically protected at Commons. Ping Anomie as well who can explain more about why the Module:Random necessitated creation of Wikipedia:Picture of the day/On the main pages. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
While we have several copies of the main page (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and apparently also these) that each apply cascading protection, it was still possible that one of the random options wouldn't be transcluded onto any of them and so would be a potential target for main page vandalism. So I made a module that would load all the random POTD possibilities onto a cascade-protected page. Anomie 19:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay,  Done. Thanks for the explanation — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: that page is already cascade protected, so is there any advantage in transcluding it on Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
MSGJ, yes, while the page is cascade protected on en.wiki, that does not mean that the files on it will be protected on Commons. It is cascade protected on en.wiki so that the various templates on it are protected. But to ensure that Krinklebot protects the files, it needs to be transcluded into one of the pages that the bot looks for. For example, if you removed the line{{#if:{{Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection}}||}} from this page, WP:CMP would cease to function and the ITN photo would become unprotected. Cascade protection on en.wiki does not automatically propagate to Commons. Krinklebot only protects files currently on Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow's Main Page. Since the POTD templates on somedays randomly rotate, Krinklebot will contantly protect and unprotect them as they cycle. A vandal could silently wait for this cycle and vandalize one of these files at the right moment. When they cycle back on the Main Page, Krinklebot would protect the wrong version again. We could be stuck with the wrong version for several minutes until we sorted it out. Since the vandalized file is protected on Commons, we would need a Commons admin to revert. In the meantime, our only recourse would be to remove the POTD template altogether or replace it with yesterday's. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thematic Days

Perhaps from time to time we might have a thematic front page where the featured article, the did you knows and the on this days all relate to a single topic. E.g. cartography, the vikings, computer science, Brazil or anything else one cares to think up. We would probably need a WikiProject to sign up to generate the content. Thoughts? Greenshed (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

We already do that on some holidays. Particularly on Christmas, Halloween, International Women's Day, Valentine's Day or April Fool's Day the DYK, FA and FP are selected accordingly. Brandmeistertalk 22:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
These are date-themed whereas I was more thinking about some topic-themed days (not that the date ones are bad). Greenshed (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I think this is a fantastic idea. Some topics will have a particular date that would be most appropriate to showcase articles on that topic (for example 7 September could have a theme of Brazil). For other topics you could just pick a date. For best results, you should start planning at least 6 months in advance. Some of the main page sections have specific processes to reserve a slot, e.g.
— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

In the news: Coronavirus

On the Main Page it states that the coronavirus in China 'infects more than five hundred people, killing at least seventeen'. However, most recent reports state that there are more than 600 cases of infection ([1]), and I think it should be noted that these are only the confirmed cases, as a new report by Imperial College London ([2]) estimates around 4000 cases in Wuhan alone. Maybe this should be reflected on the Main Page. JACKINTHEBOXTALK 16:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@JackintheBox: These kinds of reports ought to go to WP:ERRORS, but I've gone ahead and updated the figures to match the article. I suspect they'll need to be changed quite frequently. — 🦊 19:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

We did it

6 million articles. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 19:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Da-na-na-NA-na ... Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
What is the 6 millionth article? Greenshed (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Maria Elise Turner Lauder, created, fittingly enough, by Rosiestep. Daniel Case (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I think the total number fluctuates, up and down, as some article are created and others are deleted. There may be several? But I guess someone must know of an easy way to find out. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
This discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Six million articles. — xaosflux Talk 20:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Happy reaching 6,000k! — Hamid Hassani (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Congrats Wikipedia! Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 21:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Can someone provide the link to the new File of wikipedia, just want to see the discussion for the changs. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 20:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@FlightTime Phone: see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Promotional_banner_for_the_6_millionth_article?. I'm the one who "pulled the trigger" so if you are looking for a head on a platter if something is wrong, hit me up! — xaosflux Talk 20:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Absolutely not just wondering and wanted to see the discussion, not opposing jut want to see. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 20:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

MP Banner

A discussion about turning on the main page banner for WP:6M is going on at Wikipedia_talk:Six_million_articles#Linking_to_here - please join in if you have commentary on that. — xaosflux Talk 03:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about a new selection method for featured articles

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#the calais entry... um.... about whether future featured articles should be randomized on the Main Page which needs input by Main Page people. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there good reason for cascade protecting Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday?

I am not sure why Wikipedia:Main Page/Yesterday is cascade protected. It seems excessive. It would be nice to edit OTD entries before we forget about them. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This seems like at @Howcheng: question. --Jayron32 16:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I dunno, it's been like that for as long as I can remember. howcheng {chat} 17:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
It is rather frustrating. Sometimes an error is noticed and raised at ERRORS, but the item rolls off before an admin shows up to fix it. Non-admins then have to wait another 24 hours before they can fix the item, yet admins won't deal with it because it's no longer on the MP. It would be good if there's a way to close that loophole without compromising protection of the live MP. Modest Genius talk 17:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Unprotected I'm reducing it to ECP (via IAR) and removing cascade - I don't see any direct threats to the actual main page here. Let this bake in for a week, then we can try to reduce EcP to SPP next. — xaosflux Talk 18:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Any admin that finds a problem should feel free to reverse this at will. — xaosflux Talk 18:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
On second thought, I've returned it to Full Protection for the page, but have kept the cascading option off. The actual page layout code should maintain parity with the primary page code and shouldn't really be directly edited without good reason. — xaosflux Talk 21:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Main Page January 2020 technical update

Hello, a technical design update incorporating responsive elements and template styles is proposed to be brought online for the Main Page. This may be previewed here: Wikipedia:Main page 2020.01 technical update, this incorporates styling found here: Wikipedia:Main page 2020.01 technical update/styles.css. The goal of this is to improve technical components, and allow for removing of hard coded back-end configurations for the mobile web view of the main page. Specifically, this update is not focusing on changing the actual content, or layout of content on the main page, or the mobile view. This update is also not changing any of the current editorial processes for adding or updating main page content. To see the diff of the technical code change, Special:Diff/938165663 has the low-level details. If enacted, a future discussion could be held to determine if any content updates would be useful for the mobile view. What is the next step? Testing and feedback! Please review the proposed page and test it with any method you would like, if you find bugs please let us know. As this is designed to be a technical change only, if your feedback is about content or content styling (such as what featured content should be on the page, or where it is on the page, or if you want some styling changed such as new color schemes), please start a separate discussion. Thank you! — xaosflux Talk 14:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Pings to some contributors that were involved in this or similar efforts recently: @Izno, Jdlrobson, Yair rand, and MSGJ:. — xaosflux Talk 14:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Xaosflux, looks okay to me (desktop, vector theme). I'm not seeing the "In other projects" section on the left side on your version, but I'm assuming that's because your test page doesn't exist on those projects and isn't a technical issue. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 14:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Creffett: Yes, no part of the change should impact anything in left sidebar, or special css that does things like hide the delete and move tab from admins at the top - this should only impact things in the main layout area. — xaosflux Talk 15:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Good work, well done. Bazza (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Looks fine to me, I couldn't spot any issues or desktop or mobile. Modest Genius talk 16:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • A very minor point, but the new look is not completely identical to the old. The main page mobile view looks different when viewed in Google Chrome on a desktop with wide screen - compare the live version with the test version. Obviously this is not the primary way that mobile view is supposed to be used, it's really for a narrow screen, but noting it here anyway. Instead of a vertical layout, it's tiling horizontally, and including coloured boxes around the section headers - again, in wider screen view only.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Amakuru: try changing your screen width in those views, it should adjust if you are in a smaller viewport. — xaosflux Talk 16:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: yes, indeed it does change on a smaller viewport, and as long as you're aware of this then I'm sure it's no actually an issue. It's only that you said above that "layout of content on the main page" and the mobile view would not be changed yet this is a change, albeit a minor one that nobody will notice under normal usage scenarios - unless they're someone who loves reading the mobile view in a browser!  — Amakuru (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Amakuru: thank you for the note, I didn't mean to be misleading - forgot to explain that part (side by side vs stacked) at certain viewport sizes in mobile view - that is on purpose and may match what you see with a tablet on the current version. — xaosflux Talk 17:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Also, while we're on this topic, and if people are tinkering with the layout in this way, is there any chance we could add DYK, OTD, POTD and TFL to the mobile layout? I recall from a past conversation that those were removed some years ago without any explicit community consensus to do so. I personally find it very annoying and wrong that those sections, which editors are putting time and effort into each day, are not visible to a sizeable portion of our viewers. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Amakuru: we are at a bit of a technical stick right now, as far as adding sections in - once this change, and the associated phab work, gets done - the community will have local control over what sections will be show in mobile - I think that is a good discussion to have, but should be broken out from this one. — xaosflux Talk 16:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Xaosflux: thanks for the response, that makes sense.  —  Amakuru (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
This will be **a lot** easier after this change but is out of scope for now! Jdlrobson (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

bug   New bug  (Portal links at low res.)

  • The portal links (Arts, Geography, ...) becomes a vertical list on screen sizes <1000px, and show up under the "Welcome to Wikipeda" banner rather than to its right. This looks very ugly. I'd be in favour of not showing the portal links at all, and centering the "Welcome to Wikipedia" banner, on <1000px screens. Other than this, the redesign looks very neat 👍. SD0001 (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
    @SD0001: let me get back to you on that one - needs improvement. — xaosflux Talk 20:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
    For comparison, my 2018 proposal shows the portal links quite differently on small screens (and also keeps the background coloring for the various sections). --Yair rand (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
    I think Yair rand's direction is the way to go for those, or perhaps with hlist (or similar) formatting. We can probably just include the specific rules needed in this case (no sublists gets rid of a lot of those classes in context). --Izno (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
    I'll take a look at Yair Rand's version of this today and see what I can do. Jdlrobson (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
    I started a change there that works to fix this on Timeless. Unfortunately Vector may need a little more massaging for its min-width since it is not as smart as Timeless. :) --Izno (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Xaosflux: Love it, overall. 1: Do the <div>s without any attributes enclosing TFL and TFP have any function? 2: I've proposed accessibility markup in Wikipedia:Main page 2020.01 technical update/Accessibility (diff). Should be no visual changes. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks User:Matt Fitzpatrick those seem within the scope of this technical change. Thanks! I've made adjustments per User:SD0001 to mirror Yair rand's version. I urge against making too many more changes to the responsive mode as most users will not be seeing any of the changes here - only users who use Minerva or Timeless as a desktop skin on a mobile device are likely to benefit for the time being - and perfection is the enemy of progress. The more comfortable we get with making incremental changes, the more we can achieve and the quicker we can make progress. I'd love to ship this one and for us to switch focus onto redesigns and revealing further sections on the mobile site - which will be much easier with the new stylesheet! For example enabling "did you know" on mobile should be as easy as removing a single class with the new design in place. Jdlrobson (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In the web mainpage, the Featured articles heading is "From today's featured article". That is fine, because we have more than enough space there. In the current mobile mainpage, that heading is truncated to "Today's featured article" and so makes the text one-liner fittingly. This proposed change will alter that and serve "From today's featured article", this brought at least two problems, one big one small. The small one is, the "From" is clearly unnecessary in such place where space is scarce. The big one is, it makes the title to extend to two lines now and obviously creates unnecessary large white space to the right while pushing the article snippet down. Note that, even if you click mobile view on Wikipedia:Main page 2020.01 technical update it does not show how it will actually looks on mobile. In the real mobile or with the actual mainpage, above that Featured articles heading there's a welcome note (which has its own space issues too), thus making the headings to become three lines, that's almost one-quarter of some screens just for headings. That would clearly not be an improvement. So I'd advise that the Featured articles heading should be preserved as it's. The way it's on mobile is OK and does not need changing. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand you User:Ammarpad. Clicking mobile view is how it will display. I have verified this locally and read through the code multiple times. Per heading yes this will change on mobile and could be improved. I would prefer to change the heading on desktop but if that is too controversial I can provide an option which retains the status quo but at added inefficiency/maintenance burden. Jdlrobson (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I think I said this clearly. But let me rephrase. On current mobile page, the Featured articles heading occupies single line. It says; "Today's Featured article". This new proposed change will alter that. It will rename that heading to "From today's Featured article" (unifying it with desktop text) and that will make the text to extend to two lines. If you add the welcome note, that means three big headings. But I note you just changed that after your comment. That's what I was saying. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
If you are referring to the "Welcome, username!" note that's logged in only and is not impacted by this change. Jdlrobson (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I know it's logged in only, but I did not say it will be impacted. I only said Wikipedia:Main page 2020.01 technical update does not show (actual mainpage elements) because it omits the welcome note and that makes a difference worth noting. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done but we are fine with that confusion on mobile? :) the new version retains the existing headings by hiding the text "from" on mobile when there is no space which is how the mobile heading has displayed since 2012 albeit it will now say article not content . It would be ideal if a three word heading could be agreed upon that displays the same on mobile and desktop but for now I think this is good enough. Jdlrobson (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
The mobile has always said 'article', as far as I can remember. So there's no more problem there. I don't want nitpick here also, @Jdlrobson: but since you're working on desktop minerva I have to say this. The "Today's featured article" is shown correctly on mobile minerva, but on desktop minerva, the "today" part starts with a small case and that apparently does not look good. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
{{{Done}}} Issue with Minerva desktop fixed. Jdlrobson (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • When resizing the window on desktop view below 1000px the sections lose all their styling and default to h2 headings which look bad. Also, at exactly 1000px the portal text overlaps the logo; @media (min-width: 1000px) {} and @media screen and (max-width: 1000px) and (min-width: 850px) {} are used to apply styles and someone forgot the widths both inclusive.  Nixinova  T  C   05:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Per portlet text overlapping logo: {{{Done}}}
Per media queries not sure what you mean. I think these were added specifically for Timeless in screen resolutions between 850px and 1000px. The medias query min-width applies for all resolutions above 1000px. For example at 1200px only the latter applies.
Per heading and section styling this is by design and aimed to mirror the mobile design that has been in place since 2012. On small screens I would argue contrast of background to foreground and touch size area are the most important factors. I think this is very subjective and needs some stronger arguments to why this is a problem compared to the status quo. Please consider the existing behaviour of the Main Page. On Vector at about 836px and below the page is already unusable and readable - portlet spills out the main container and only about 3 words per sentence display in boxes.
If this is really a sticking point for making these technical changes we could limit all these new changes to Minerva and Timeless skins for the first pass by adding body.skin-minerva and body.skin-timeless to all the CSS rules. As a MobileFrontend maintainer I plan to be much more ruthless with deprecating the existing mobile main page behaviour - which has been deprecated for several years now - so paying off this technical debt should be priority and trump any considerations around preferred layout on smaller resolution. Jdlrobson (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I think I've fixed some of the issues. I'm bothered the whole main page does not display in Timeless at mobile resolutions but I'll tolerate it for now because I would rather us get this deployed. Then we can fuss about what displays on the main page on mobile or on responsive skins. --Izno (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Since this likely going to lead to an RfC to add all sections to mobile, I created Wikipedia:Main page 2020.01 technical update (nomobile removed) mobile version. I see some issues in the "Wikipedia's sister projects" section. The mobile view on my laptop screen appears to force two columns when three columns are better. On minimizing my screen, I see the sister projects are forced into 1 column when two columns is better. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: certainly worth talking about - and one we have editorial control of that layout again that is a very worthwhile discussion that should have a well advertised RfC. — xaosflux Talk 17:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Xaosflux, I think a look at Template:Wikipedia's sister projects/styles.css is needed to address the issue I mentioned above. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Most of the concerns have been addressed, we are looking in to the off-wiki configs to ensure that the legacy mobile and main page special casing don't break anything, or if they would need to be coordinated with any update. If there are specific items that anyone still sees would make the tech update be worse then the existing configuration, please summarize below here. — xaosflux Talk 17:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
    Xaosflux, check out https://en.m.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Main_Page (below the gray box). I haven't copied across the sub-templates but that shouldn't matter - the containing elements are what it's important. Toggle to mobile view and you'll only see the two boxes that currently display. You can go ahead with the technical update when you are ready. No config changes necessary at this time. Jdlrobson (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Just to add that the changes all look good to me, and I really appreciate the clear class naming. Removing the special casing of mobile is long overdue (phab:T32405 has been open since 2011!), thank you for the hard work on making it happen here. Hopefully this can be a jumping off point for future improvements to the main page. the wub "?!" 20:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Tech update has gone live

Please report any errors with the updated technical layout right here. The /Tomorrow and /Yesterday MP versions haven't been patched in yet, plan on doing them in a day if no issues. The backend tech config for legacymobile and specialcasingmainpage should be getting skipped for the main page now as well. Please don't adjust the "nomobile" declarations without serious discussion of how the mobile main page layout should be. — xaosflux Talk 00:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Will be rolling this back in about an hour, at least to have time to review the initial feedback. Please do take note of any issues, and if possible grab screen shots (you don't have to upload them just yet). Thank you! — xaosflux Talk 02:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure that this is the correct place to raise this, but can't see anywhere else. WP:VPT says to discuss here (T:MP).

The main page has changed from a 2x2 layout to a 1x4 layout (again). It was tried before, not liked and consensus was against such a change. It needs to be changed back ASAP and a proper discussion (i.e. a RFC) held to gain consensus for such a change. Mjroots (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Non-Mobile minerva and responsive monobook issues

bug   New bug

@Xaosflux: currently, only TFA and ITN show on mobile (both minerva and responsive monobook). Removing TFP and OTD from all mobile users is problematic. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Xaosflux: I'm only seeing the Today's Featured Article and In The News sections now - everything else including DYK, featured picture, on this day, and even the "Welcome to Wikipedia" banner have now vanished. I'm using responsive monobook on mobile. stwalkerster (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber and Stwalkerster: thank you, that is likely going to be a roll-back condition - would like to keep running for a a couple of hours still to gather other feedback. — xaosflux Talk 00:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
N.B. the purposeful mobile view is meant to only show these. — xaosflux Talk 00:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
"Responsive Monobook" and "Minerva Neue" are purpose-built to provide the lightweight mobile experience. ((@Isarra: who may be able to comment more on R-Monobook). So this may be the correct result - but it shouldn't have been "unexpected". — xaosflux Talk 00:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Timeless also goes this way at mobile-size resolutions. This was one point I wanted to leave until the follow on discussion. Responsive Monobook, and Timeless, are probably not used by enough people to revert this change solely due to missing the rest of the content that desktop readers have been seeing for a long time. Jdlr below makes the correct point regarding Minerva specifically. --Izno (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Use of the .nomobile class to hide elements on mobile has been a convention we have been pushing for responsive and mobile skins for years ('we' being skins maintainers and devs in general). Not really sure what to say here, but that perhaps a rethink may be in order in terms of what all is being hid now, across MF and just general skins alike, that it's more... common for folks to be using mobile-friendly skins in the first place? Back when MF decided for itself, the community here didn't tend to really consider mobile at all, so it's likely it was a purely internal WMF discussion then, but things are very different these days. -— Isarra 17:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
this is not a bug for Minerva. Minerva on mobile has done this for almost 8 years and has been blocked doing anything about it without this technical change! As for responsive monobook I think having consistency with Minerva is more important right now. Revealing these additional sections is in the interest in both skins and now **finally** can happen. In the meantime please add .nomobile {display:block !important;} in your user styles Jdlrobson (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Probably better to advise would be .page-Main_Page .nomobile {display:block !important;} :) --Izno (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
OK, I can understand reducing the complexity of the page for mobile, but reducing complexity and reducing actual page content are two very different things. Can you point me to where the discussion to remove these sections from mobile was held please - I'm interested to know how much of a minority I'm in. I'm also curious if discussion happened, given I see specifically, this update is not focusing on changing the actual content, or layout of content on the main page, or the mobile view in the section above, which I admittedly have not fully read. Given that statement, perhaps it would be prudent to add the CSS mentioned to the sitewide responsive monobook CSS? While consistency is good, changing the good bit to be consistent with the bad bit is not the way around it should be. stwalkerster (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Stwalkerster: for what it's worth - these sections have been not showing on mobile for a very long time, the "new" issue (that may need more talking about right away) seems to be for the use case of non-mobile users that have purposefully elected to use a mobile-skin - I believe that is your current condition correct? — xaosflux Talk 01:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
This change (which while things are confusing is likely to be rolled back shortly at least to have time to further discuss) is necessary to let us opt-in to showing those sections to all mobile users (such as not-logged-in readers). — xaosflux Talk 01:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll accept the Minerva issue as pre-existing (I don't use Minerva because I hate it... but that's irrelevant). I use Monobook because I'm old-school, and with that I use the Monobook responsive option on mobile. I'm happy that this is allowing Minerva to get these sections later, but previously Monobook responsive had these sections too and this is a regression from previous functionality. I don't see a reason, given a CSS fix apparently exists (I've not tried it yet) that we can't sort this for all Monobook responsive users, nor do I understand why this change has been rolled out now instead of rolling it out with the opt-in changes. If we're rolling this back then I'm fine with that, but I would prefer this gets solved one way or another before it goes live again. stwalkerster (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional information Stwalkerster I don't recommend you try a css hack. The bigger (better?) fix would be to make a change that enables more sections for "mobile" users (including desktop users that are using mobile skins). I don't want to cram too many changes at once - thus may at least roll back to have time to discuss. Hoping I can get a few other reports first tonight. — xaosflux Talk 02:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm on IRC now if anyone wants to talk about this. FWIW the conversation to do this on mobile was made long before I joined Wikimedia and out of no other options. I don't really mind what Monobook does here - that's up to the community - if responsive Monobook not displaying these sections is a big problem for all users the solution is to put body.skin-monobook .nomobile { display: block; } inside Template:Main_Page/styles.css. Skin styles will accept such rules for skin specific CSS. If the display is just an issue for you - add that style to your skin style. I certainty don't think this warrants a roll back and user:Xaosflux I'd strongly recommend against doing so as this is easily fixable. Jdlrobson (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Note Minerva's desktop behaviour on a responsive screen is by design and I'm hoping to use this issue to bring motivation to fix the underlying problem. I'm maintainer of that skin and don't plan to fix this in the software itself. Jdlrobson (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment the desktop view on a mobile phone has changed significantly with this update. It no longer looks like the desktop main page, but more like the mobile version, with vertically tiled sections instead of the four panel layout. Presumably this is intentional, as it may give a better layout for readers, but for those of us maintaining the page and keeping track of overall layout issues this will be quite a limitation.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Amakuru: do you think something like an editor-specific override preference would alleviate this type of concern? (Perhaps in gadgets as realistically administrators that edit main page components are a small subset of editors). — xaosflux Talk 12:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Next steps

Thank you for the initial reports, especially to @Stwalkerster, AntiCompositeNumber, CAPTAIN MEDUSA, and Izno: - additional mobile testing is still ongoing, so please bear with us on tweaks or rollbacks. A few points for next steps:

  • There are some experience changes being shown for editors with fairly narrow desktop monitors (optimizations kick in the narrower it is)
  • Editors that have enabled a mobile skin (minerva) will see the mobile experience
  • We will be documenting these differences to make it clear what is expected and what is a bug
  • We only expect minor layout changes for readers, similar to editors when using narrow skins optimizations to help avoid horizontal scrolling will kick in.
  • A patch was just put on to aid r-monobook logged in editors
  • We are holding off on a rollback for the moment, as the mobile code base testing is still occurring. - This will still likely be occurring in the next 24 hours. Please continue to let us know about any issues here.
  • Once this is done, we certainly should have a discussion about which (even ALL) of the normal main page items should display for mobile users.
  • Thank you! — xaosflux Talk 03:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Note: WMF staffers may roll back Main Page to prior version once their ongoing software tests are done. — xaosflux Talk 03:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
      • @Xaosflux: Sorry if I've missed it somewhere but can I opt-out of this? I don't like the discrepancy between the mobile web view and the desktop view. If the mobile (non-desktop/web) view offered a different layout, I'm okay with that. --qedk (t c) 09:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        • @QEDK: could you expand on this a bit? There has always been a major difference between the mobile web view and the desktop view for the main page, notably for readers most of the content sections don't appear in mobile web view (though we will be able to enable them once this is done, if we want to). — xaosflux Talk 11:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
          • @Xaosflux: Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm saying that that is the only behaviour that makes sense. I want my mobile web view to look like my desktop view. I'm asking if there's a way to opt-out of this trial (I hope this is a trial?) --qedk (t c) 11:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
          • @QEDK: the WMF staffers are still completing part of the back end tests, and this is still scheduled to be reverted today. Then it can be further reviewed. — xaosflux Talk 12:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        Agreed, this is per my comment above. I thought the first step here was to make behind-the-scenes changes without affecting the look and feel, but this is quite a major change that I wasn't expecting. Note that even on an actual desktop, with a not unreasonable narrowed browser window (something that might be particularly noticeable on older machines with low resolutions), the view switches to the vertical layout. To be honest I think this is less good even with my reader hat on - I expect a desktop view to be a desktop view, on any website I visit on my phone. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        Thanks for the note @Amakuru:, that is going to be something that will need some discussion for sure - the "desktop view" on a mobile device will be similar to the desktop view on a desktop with a narrow screen, if I understand you fully it is that you don't like having narrow-screen optimization at all, is that correct? If so, this is probably going to be a sticking point and either a width-responsive main page will be used, or it won't. — xaosflux Talk 12:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        @Xaosflux: thanks for your reply. And yes, I think my concern does in the end boil down to issues with what you call "narrow-screen optimization". I feel like we've been misled a bit here, unintentionally I'm sure and in good faith of course, because the message last week clearly said that nothing would change appearancewise - it was just a technical update. Yet suddenly the UI/UX is quite different. I know Wikipedia is a notoriously hard place to make progress, and I don't want to just be an old stick-in-the-mud for the sake of it, but I do think changes beyond the cosmetic need serious discussion. The obvious point I would make is that, if someone expressly presses the "Desktop view" link at the bottom of the screen, something which I imagine is already a niche feature that most readers would not do, should we really be serving them something that isn't actually the real desktop view, but instead a sort of halfway house that isn't the mobile view, but still tries to optimise as if it's on a mobile? To answer your earlier question, if there is indeed strong consensus for this way forward and it ends up being the long-term decision beyond this mini-trial here, then I would certainly appreciate some sort of gadget for viewing the proper main page in full technicolour FHD+ resolution on my phone, both for admin experience and because that's the way I like it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
        @Amakuru: thanks for the note, agree this needs discussion. The "focus" wasn't on that component - thus it got missed in the expectations. We are still rolling back today, just that the rollback has to be executed carefully because of the fragile nature of the mobilefront end config (under our legacy settings) and it has to be done server-side (we certainly could force the roll-back right now, but it could risk having no content displayed for mobile readers). WMF staffers are getting that part ready. — xaosflux Talk 16:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Pastel Update?

Finally those pastel colour headers have gone and we have a main page nearer what was proposed in like 2008. Ridiculous how long it took to change. It's very plain though, surely the graphics could be improved with some decent grey shading and bolder frame around the main Wikipedia box? Can you tweak it to a thicker frame?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Which page are you referring to? I still have pastel-coloured headers, which I prefer. One person's grey shading and bolder frame are another's irritation and distraction. Bazza (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, logging in on my desktop they're still there. My iPad earlier the pastel colours had gone and it was all organized horizontally even on the desktop setting. I think it's about time we updated the desktop version too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld and Bazza 7: see the section above, right now (until reverted for further review and discussion later today) a responsive narrow-screen optimization is kicking in. The pastel colors have not been removed from the standard view, but as the screen width becomes narrower elements such as borders are slimmed or removed to allow more content to show on a single page of your screen. — xaosflux Talk 12:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Ah I see. I don't dislike the main page with the pastel colours, it's OK, and as Bazza says it could look even worse. But for the main page of one of the world's leading websites in 2020 you'd expect it to have changed at least once in 15 years.. Given that there's a few options for different skins it would be good if there was the option for a few different main page designs, those who like things bolder and more graphically impressive and modern and those who prefer the minimalist look.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: keep in mind that most of the "leading website" type viewpoints are because of the readers, most of which aren't logged in and would have no notion of skins. We certainly could decide to change the default for readers (which is the logged out, vector skin view on desktop; logged out minerva skin on mobile). — xaosflux Talk 12:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
True, difficult to get consensus though. Personally I've always like the colour scheme and search bar on http://www.iranicaonline.org/ even if the format isn't the best, but I bet there's people who hate it! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Undiscussed change to display of the Main Page

The display of the main page has been changed from a 2x2 to a 1x4 format. This change is undiscussed and without consensus. It was tried once before and reverted as being without consensus. I posted above on this subject several hours ago, and have not had the courtesy of a reply. Therefore it seems to me that an RFC full discussion is appropriate.

The layout of the Main Page should be restored to a 2x2 format unless it can be shown that there is consensus for any other format - Discuss. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I'm sorry your note was missed for reply above, this is rolling back today to allow for a longer discussion. Please note, this is not a fixed 2x2 vs 1x4 layout, it is responsive based on your available screen width (which is certainly something you may have no control over!) — xaosflux Talk 12:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I disabled the RfC tag above, so we don't have colliding RfC's (because this is already going to be reverted as the next step) - if you strongly disagree with this, reactivate. — xaosflux Talk 12:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
OK, I understand the disabling, have tweaked my OP to account for that. Maybe I should clarify, I'm talking about the display of the Main Page on laptops and PCs. I accept that mobile phones display in a 1x4 format and don't have an issue with that. What I object to is a change being re-introduced when said change has already been rejected by the community. Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you @Mjroots: I understand, and that is certainly something that needs more discussion - I missed that during some pre-tests because all of my desktop tests were done with a wide monitor on the desktop domain. This may be something where adjusting the responsive width point (perhaps 1025px) could be the best answer - but it will need to be talked about! — xaosflux Talk 12:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Mjroots: Is it possible that you've missed the discussion about most recent layout changes? The discussion seems pretty extensive. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Andrybak: the one that says "Specifically, this update is not focusing on changing the actual content, or layout of content on the main page, or the mobile view."? I saw it but what has happened is not what was promised. Mjroots (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the focus wasn't on that (it wasn't the reason for the work) so it didn't get tested or advertised under the conditions it ended up presenting in, prior to this possibly becoming a permanent feature it will be. — xaosflux Talk 16:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Followup issues

Moved to Template_talk:Main_Page/styles.css#Mobile_monobook_padding

I found a 2px horizontal overflow on mobile monobook in Safari. This is due to padding on the TD cells applied by the user agent. ... —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 08:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The testing is over and the change has been rolled back

Thank you everyone that has helped so far, and everyone that has provided feedback. A much more comprehensive set of change documentation is being put together now, and then will be open for discussion. Will try to ping everyone that commented above when that is ready. If you are having an issue right now, please purge your cache and reload the page - if a new problem persists after that please let us know here. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 23:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Sizing of POTD templates in mobile view (iPhone)

This may have been alluded to above: for several days I am unable to size the POTD template pages without having to scroll horizontally. Jmar67 (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jmar67: POTD doesn't normally show on mobile view, are you selecting "desktop view" from the bottom? — xaosflux Talk 00:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I have always seen the POTD text in mobile view. Now I don't see the image itself, however. That is new. I do not use desktop view. Jmar67 (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jmar67: thank you for the update, if possible would you please grab a screen shot of how it is right now. We have a main page update (see above) that may be at least temporarily rolled back again - and having a before/after from you would be good. — xaosflux Talk 01:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
How do I send you a screen shot? I can create the image but don't know the process after that. Jmar67 (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Have the "before" and will wait for the "after". Jmar67 (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jmar67: I'll drop you an email you can reply to (if you don't mind divulging an email address to me only). — xaosflux Talk 02:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Is it possible you are using the Minerva or Timeless skin on the desktop domain on a mobile browser? It's impossible for POTD to display on the mobile web site. You can confirm whether you are on the desktop version of the site by the lack of the '.m.' in the address bar and a link to "Mobile view" in the footer. I've documented expected changes here: User_talk:Jdlrobson/Main_page_technical_change_roll_out with potential workarounds while we make these changes. Jdlrobson (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to all. I just realized that what I am referring to are the POTD templates linked from WP:ERRORS. I still have the problem. Jmar67 (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The changes above should not had any impact on any page other than Main Page, but there certainly could be something else going on. — xaosflux Talk 16:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jmar67: FWIW, the change to Main Page is done now, I don't expect it will impact your report but please check. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 23:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, the POTD template for 6 February has the problem but the one for 7 February is OK. May have something to do with the image. I do not see the image when I have the sizing problem. Jmar67 (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Template for 8 February is also normal. Jmar67 (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedic?

off the main page --Jayron32 11:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't want to sound like a grumpy old man, but is the below entry really suitable for WP's main page? I can't imagine how anyone would gain any knowledge from it, and frankly I have a hard time believing most people can even understand what it means:

  • that when the developers of Superhot noticed Grace Bruxner's "cool frog game", they were "like 'hmmm... what if..... money?????'"

I guess I'm asking, what criteria is there for inclusion, and how did this pass muster? This seems like a meme which is more suitable for some other site ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The blurbs in the DYK section are chosen to be interesting, which some people mistakenly believe is a synonym for "weird". It's a feature, not a bug of the way DYK blurbs are written. --Jayron32 15:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I've reported it as an error, and suggested an improvement. Bazza (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tourette syndrome on 3 March

See my query at WP:AN about how to handle likely coprolalia-related vandalism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Wail al-Shehri

Where do I post to complain about having a photo of the WTC memorial next to article of one of the hi-jackers ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.69.35 (talkcontribs) 00:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It has been moved to WP:ERRORS. Stephen 01:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, for removing the question the first time — I didn't realize it was about the Main page. My bad. El_C 01:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Front page for this guy, eh? Way to go with not giving terrorists fame! Lexicon (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Lexicon, what a strange position for sysop. I was shocked by it and assumed it must have come from someone not familiar with our policies and guidelines. The Main Page sometimes features slaveowners, Nazis, genocidal dictators, rapists, and murders. Why? BECAUSE THEY EXIST! We are an encyclopedia. We must never forget that. Hiding information only leads to disinformation and bastardization of history.

The world is at least fifty percent terrible,
and that’s a conservative estimate,
though I keep this from my children.
For every bird there is a stone thrown at a bird.
For every loved child, a child broken, bagged,
sunk in a lake. Life is short and the world
is at least half terrible, and for every kind
stranger, there is one who would break you,
though I keep this from my children.

--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
There's no need to hide information, but there's also no need to "feature" this terrorist. This is in poor taste, and shows poor judgement. 2001:4898:A800:1010:6BFB:5D96:B842:FB82 (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Is it any stranger for a sysop than anyone else? I in no way suggested hiding information: it's still all there for anyone who seeks it out. What I attempted to suggest, though, was that we don't give those seeking notoriety through their actions of terrorism exactly what they want. While I understand this is a somewhat controversial position, it is by no means an uncommon one, with a number of respected news outlets choosing not to publish names of terrorists. I do admit, however, that perhaps the "time limit" for this has passed for an event that happened in 2001. Lexicon (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
This is huge and what I have been trying to express on the talk page for the article itself. Being a featured article is one thing but being a TFA seen by 15 million unique visitors in one day is giving this man exactly what he wanted. I genuinely think Wikipedia can do better than to say “well this is an encyclopedia, deal with it.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.224.195 (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I disagree with the argument that unsavory or outright vile people should be kept off the main page. My issue (as I noted above in the Errors section) is the inappropriateness of the accompanying picture. Aside from that, if a bio meets FA standards, it shouldn't be kept from the main page because the person was evil. The purpose here is to build the best encyclopedia we can, yes? Not to occlude information because it's distasteful, right? -- Veggies (talk) 07:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Ultimately there is a world of difference between demonstrating that something exists, which the article does; and celebrating or lauding it, which isn't being done in the slightest by either the article or the main page. If something is a suitable subject for an article then it's just as suitable for highlighting as the subject of any of the main page venues, because we are a neutral resource. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 12:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with the OP and Veggies. Having this as a feature article isn't the issue, but the inclusion of the memorial picture and even the wording of the first sentence could be seen as ambiguous. I refer specifically to the "memorial pictured" in parentheses; I can certainly see this being misconstrued by those uninitiated on the topic, possibly, as implying that the memorial is for him and/or the victims of the attacks. It just does not scan well, and clearly multiple people agree.
At the very least, is this the best place to raise such concerns? And how can they be addressed in a timely way? I suspect by the time this discussion reaches any consensus, the day will be over.FrunkSpace (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Are we at least in agreement that, picture aside, it's okay to have featured articles like this on the main page? I just want us to avoid falling into the trap of barring certain articles because some decidedly patriotic people might get mad.--WaltCip (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Removing the picture is a big improvement. I still contend that it would have been easy to pick from the other 800+ featured articles (not yet TFA) to be the TFA, and that placing this person here is EXACTLY the kind of thing he wanted from his vile and cowardly act. I understand the sentiments by posters who disagree with me, but I do think that even though Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it still has a responsibility to recognize its prominent place in society and in people’s daily routines. Whether you like it or not, you have absolutely lent credence to this man’s ultimate goal, which is a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.224.195 (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no moral responsibility beyond that of its own pillars and policies, and I certainly don't believe in burying our heads in the sand and pretending that history never happened. Where do we draw the line?--WaltCip (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
WP:RGW refers to editor behavior and advocacy. This falls under WP:PROFANE where it states "Wikipedia also does not favor offensive images over non-offensive images." Offensive images should only be used for good reasons where they would help the reader better understand the subject at hand. (Example: An image of intercourse would go with sex) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I want to point out that I have no argument about removing the image. I think removing the image was the right thing to do. My primary qualm is about saying we shouldn't feature this article at all, because it's construed as a memorial for the terrorist. At the risk of knowingly invoking Godwin's law, it's not a memorial anymore than featuring the Night of the Long Knives would be a memorial to the dead SA members (or the SS who carried out the attacks).--WaltCip (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with you there as this article is just like any other that is a featured article. The issue appears to be resolved now as far as I can see. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I must admit, when I first saw this, I thought: "surprising that a hijacker gets named on the WTC memorial". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I was actually thinking the same thing... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I think a lot of the problems people are having with this stem from the lack of context on the Main Page that this isn't a slot to just feature an article, it is a slot dedicated to Featured Articles. That is, the articles have been determined to be of high quality and it is that quality that is being highlighted, not the subject. This seems to be a point of confusion in many objections that are raised about TFA all the time. Such as the perennial "why are we featuring so many video games?" Unless and until the fact that we are featuring the article as a work and not the subject, these objections will continue. --Khajidha (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, maybe. But, just to note, that image certainly does not appear in the article for Wail al-Shehri. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, should have made clear I was only addressing the lingering objections to the article appearing at all. I agree that the use of the image was ill-advised and that it was rightly removed. --Khajidha (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


Advertising

More and more I see the Main Page of Wikipedia being used for the advertising of especially video games and singers/albums. (I have read "https://en.wiki.hereiszyn.com/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Main_Page#I_think_that_the_articles_listed_on_the_Main_Page_are_awful_and_much_more_important_articles_should_be_there_instead._Isn%27t_the_Main_Page_biased_towards_certain_topics?_What_can_be_done_about_it?". There is a difference between bias due to interests and blatant advertising.) RISadler (talk)

Well, I am not seeing any advertising on the current mainpage. There is a difference between mentioning or showing a thing and advertising for it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Marvel's Spider-Man is a currently available game. Same can be said of Red Dead Redemption II that was heavily featured on the Main Page, either as Featured Article or in the Did You Know section. RISadler (talk)
If so, then why are you advertising them by mentioning them here? MPS1992 (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Hahahahahaha! RISadler (talk)
Has really nothing happened worldwide since the 9th, which was seven days ago, that justifies the mentioning of the same Academy Award winner? RISadler (talk)
No, nothing at all. If anything had happened, it would have been mentioned at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates so that you could comment or assist in making ready a suitable article. MPS1992 (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
My bad then, it seems. RISadler (talk)

Today (21/02/2020) it is Red Dead Redemption 2 that's being advertised yet again. RISadler (talk)

Is it your position that having anything related to a commercial product on the Main Page constitutes "advertising"? If not, what counts as "advertising" in your view? --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Balakot straik

26 february 2019 was a balakot straik from India for Pakistan . So 26 february 2020 as a 1anuversery Rs Trump (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Anniversaries are taken from WP:OTD, and need to both be listed on the date's page (February 26) and be of a high enough standard for the main page (no orange-level maintenance tags or worse). Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 13:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Why cascade and not full?

Why not just put it on full or permanent protection, and not cascade? Cascade is confusing and won’t even let me make an edit request? Also, is this page semi protected? I will check in a couple of hours. Gale5050 (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gale5050: this page (Talk:Main Page) is only move protected. The main page is cascade protected to prevent vandalism via templates that are only intermittently used on the main page. We rarely have an edit request to the actual main page, as it doesn't contain the "content" as much as the "formatting". You are welcome to suggest a change to the main page here - this page is very heavily watched and if you request something that is best discussed elsewhere (be sure the read the banners above first) someone will likely point you in the right directions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaosflux (talkcontribs) 20:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Women in science

Please excuse if this is not the right place for this.

I would like to thank all those involved in the various sections of the Main Page for all the featured women in science links! I know that Wikipedia is not meant to be biased, but these articles show just how important a contribution these women have made to the world we have today - knowledge that could have been buried or forgotten if not for the efforts of the nominators. SuitsandTea (talk) 11:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The replacement of Katherine Johnson after a DAY with a photo of a rapist however isn't much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzuuzz (talkcontribs) 08:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
It's not. This seems to be an extraordinarily poor choice of admin discretion.--WaltCip (talk) 08:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Consider that the alternative is to have her photo juxtaposed with a story about said rapist. It gives the impression the she was one of the victims, or else the perpetrator.130.233.2.197 (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I guess editors here haven't learned anything. The negative outcome of Wiki's lack of diversity is showing. https://en.wiki.hereiszyn.com/wiki/Clarice_Phelps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9D40:12F0:F518:369E:7287:2FF8 (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
The Phelps draft was not published because it didn't meet Wikipedia's sourcing standards and establish to the layman (or laywoman) who Phelps is and why she is notable. This has to be done with anyone. You could write an article about the most famous male actor in Mongolia, but without good sourcing to establish notability, it would not be published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.124.103 (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
You might be interested in WikiProject Women scientistsGladamas (talk · contribs) 08:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hosni Mubarak is well known as a terrible dictatorship leader who supressed citizens and violated human rights and should be removed and replaced by a picture of a women or no picture at all 71.169.163.252 (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Featuring a picture of a recently deceased person of note is not an endorsement of someone's character, whether on Wikipedia or in the commercial press. [3] [4] To say that because Mubarak was bad and Johnson was a woman that means Johnson's image must be shown is simply not an argument, and is tokenism at best. Why must it be a woman, and not a recently deceased man of better character than Mubarak? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.124.103 (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The refinery fire of Carson

The refinery fire happened in Carson in February 26, 2020 at 3:30 A.M. TheWikiMaster128 (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. --Jayron32 17:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
We don't currently appear to have an article on that topic, so it can't be featured on the Main Page. You could try writing one and nominate it at WP:ITN/C although it might not be suitable for a standalone article per WP:NOTNEWS.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
In any case such an event is not going to be considered significant enough to be on ITN. See Wikipedia:In the news for the criteria, which specify an event of "wide importance", basically major national or international news. I'm in So Cal (the fire was in Carson, California); the fire was a minor local story, no serious injuries or damage outside of the refinery. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


  • Community portal... covering a wide range of Wikipedia areas.
– As opposed to a narrow range. – Sca (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Mobile friendly Main Page

With the $wgMFSpecialCaseMainPage config options being removed from Mobile Frontend in April, the mobile page will no longer have some sections removed automatically along with other thibngs. Phab:T246401 recommends doing something like https://fr.m.wiki.hereiszyn.com/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Accueil_principal or https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. The Main Page will look like https://en.m.wiki.hereiszyn.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Main_Page/Yesterday when the config option is removed. There is a proposed new main page at Wikipedia:Main page 2020.01 technical update, it will need to be implemented soon.BrandonXLF (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

At first glance that new Beeston of the 2020.01 update looks OK to me. The main contention with the original version was that it altered the desktop view from the standard on mobiles when in desktop mode, but it doesn't seem to do that now, other than for some reason making the title bar centre aligned, which is a little irritating but can be lived with. Glad to see the missing main page sections back on the mobile view too.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Content-less pic.

Interstate 675 at Schaefer Street Saginaw Michigan.jpg


This pic. of I-675 in Michigan illustrating the March 7 FA takes the cake for ennui. It's mostly sky and concrete, and could be almost anywhere in the U.S. – Sca (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess File:Saginaw,_Michigan_1955_Yellow_Book.jpg is a more interesting image but probably isn't of high enough quality; it's a little fuzzy at anything other than a small scale. But then again, the image currently being used might be dry but it's adequately illustrative of the subject. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 15:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I guess that says something about the article. – Sca (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Apollo 9 - a crude mission

Nothing new here that isn't covered by this topic's RfC last year which showed consensus to avoid gender-specific terms in spaceflight articles. Discussion degenerating and no longer a main page issue. MIDI (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not a crude mission? Well that's what it sounds like when read out to someone. Come on! This gender neutral garbage has gone too far when you're using words like 'crewed' on the main page. It was a manned mission. Say it for what it is, and stop this idiocy. The Roman Candle (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Sometime when you have some free time, it might be useful for you to find a quiet place to sit and actually think deeply about why this bothers you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Ooh, I know this one. ‑ Iridescent 18:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Just tried that. Nope, still sounds and reads bloody stupid, and that's why it bothers me. BTW, have a read of this article. It describes your reply. I would have expected better from an admin. The Roman Candle (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
OK, so you're saying that it's because it "sounds stupid", and that's why it bothers you. If you found out that it doesn't sound stupid to most people, would you still think we should change it? How about if most people as a whole thought it didn't sound stupid, but most white males thought it sounded stupid. What should we do then? If it didn't "sound stupid", but was still gender neutral, should we change it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
What about if most people not only don't think it sounds stupid, but don't even notice it because it's perfectly normal and sensible language and we're not hypersensitive to some perceived agenda, can we just leave it as "crewed" then? Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 21:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this is an "agenda" issue for TRC , people of that era (TRC, I'm not assuming you are :P ) are "used to the phrase" and it seems odd seeing it in different form, as I do, but I'll get used to it. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Agree to disagree, but I find that anyone who uses the phrase "PC gone mad" to refer to anything other than HAL 9000 tends to be able to find offence anywhere they look. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 22:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
It's not like the Apollo 9 article underplays the achievements of Jim McDivitt and his crew on this honestly underappreciated Earth orbit mission. In fact, I find it's a very well-written and detailed article. I wonder if Roman Candle will stop donating his hypothetical dollars to Wikipedia over this. WaltCip (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
If you think there is an effort to "demonise white men" (re the edit cited by Iridescent above), then there is no place for you on Wiki. Please leave and hang out somewhere else with your fellow bigots. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Fgf10 (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh well, I fix your typos anyway, and I haven't been banned yet. Art LaPella (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
The only people who claim their freedom of speech is impaired by 'political correctness' are racists and bigots. No, that is not an opinion, that is a fact. So, guess what that makes you? Fgf10 (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Whatever. Art LaPella (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
For the record, you do have my sympathies. I appreciate it must be hard to be so out of step with society as a whole. I'm afraid you're just going to have to come to terms with that. It will be for the best, for both yourself and everyone around you. There, have some free advice! Fgf10 (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
FWIW the RfC is here. Kees08 (Talk) 20:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Kees08. Closing this discussion as nothing new here adding to the RFC. MIDI (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Special header on ITN

Please note that over at WT:ITN we have added a special banner on the ITN box for the coronavirus. Please toss suggestions/issues/concerns on that over on WT:ITN. --Masem (t) 19:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 map

See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#COVID-19 map in Main Page. Thanks. Pandakekok9 (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Please replace the map with File:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map (35).svg. Thanks Pandakekok9 (talk) 09:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done @Pandakekok9: this has been updated. — xaosflux Talk 14:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Please replace the current map with File:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map (36).svg. Thanks (PS: Should I do this daily?) Pandakekok9 (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I guess so? Sam Walton (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Pandakekok9:, yes, please raise here if the map get more than a couple of days out of date. Stephen 23:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Actually, ignore that. There is no consensus to display the map anymore. Stephen 01:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Welp, guess I don't have to upload separate files again. :D Pandakekok9 (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

"HomePage" listed at Redirects for discussion

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect HomePage. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Central Notice went live

WMF has added a Central Notice, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#CentralNotice_about_coronavirus. — xaosflux Talk 02:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Heads up: 27 March Introduction to viruses

In case regular mainpage watchers missed it, TFA made a late change (yesterday) to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 27, 2020 to run Introduction to viruses. Please review now for the avoidance of late-breaking problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Idea for a addition to the main page

I think they should add a quotes section that would focus on notable quotes by famous, or not so famous people - one each day. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 13:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Scaledish, quotes are found at Wikiquotes and they have a "Quote of the day" section, having quotes on the main page isn't really in the scope of this project. BrandonXLF (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Request to remove profanity from the "Did you know section"

off the main page. --Jayron32 12:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The April Fools jokes were pretty clever in this section, but it is a little bit unsettling seeing "fuck off" in the main page of the site. Seeing how the main page is usually a safe for work site, is it possible to remove this fact or at least be able to censor the vulgarity itself? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomGuy666 (talkcontribs) 15:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED. Thank you. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for referring me to this section, it was a great resource for examining Wikipedia's policy on censorship and I will retract my statement about censoring the vulgarity itself. However, after reading the policy itself as well as WP:PROFANE I believe that having this statement on the main page violates the principle of least astonishment. If readers were to examine the 17 Million Fuck Offs page itself, the censorship policy would not apply as it is assumed they would have a general expectation to see profanity in the article itself. However, Wikipedia's main page itself rarely (albeit almost never) contains profanity so it cannot be anticipated for a user to have this expectation when viewing the main page. It is not necessary to include "fuck off," in the "did you know" because there are other facts that can be used to achieve comedic value. I apologize for the earlier formatting issues and I look forward to hearing back. --RandomGuy666 (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
The thing is that that is the title of the song. There is no other way not to have it as PROFANE even says: "a vulgarity or obscenity should either appear in its full form or not at all" and you cannot avoid it if it is the name of the song. I'm guessing you missed the day when "Fuck" was once The Featured Article? Indeed we have run several articles with rude names on DYK before like Fucking Hell, Shit Brook, Wan King Path, Shitterton and John le Fucker to name but a few. This is no different The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Removing a common word like "fuck", even when it appears in the title of a work, would set a very low bar for "profanity". ApLundell (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Chiming on to add that I also recall seeing an image with nudity on the main page a while back. While WP:NOTCENSORED has a lot of good rationale behind it, IAR it doesn't seem like a great idea to do that — the idea that children should be shielded from nudity, as profanity, is widespread across the English-speaking world, and that sort of action has the potential to scare off readers, especially when there are non-offensive alternatives. That said, I'm sure it was discussed somewhere and that smarter minds prevailed. Sdkb (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I believe that WP:CENSORMAIN makes points that fall in line similar to this. While it is just an essay and not written policy, it details points similar to this that there are better alternatives you can use without having to offend people. --RandomGuy666 (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 1 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved because it's snowing in April. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)



Main PageMain page – In general, Wikipedia pages (even the ones in the Wikipedia: namespace) should be in the sentence case. I'm not sure if the Main page should be exempt from this rule, but I think it should follow it. Even the left pane has it sentence case. Interstellarity (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose, as this would lower-case the words 'main page' when used in the middle of a sentence, as in the opening banner above. So even your nom is incorrect as you've capitalized 'Main'. This title is used "mainly" on pages such as this, and not in article text, so leaving it as is does not violate site guidelines. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Randy Kryn: You probably know this already, but Wikipedia automatically capitalizes the first letter of every page and this page is no exception so it would be technically impossible to title it main page. It would either have to be Main Page or Main page. Interstellarity (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I meant in mid-sentence, where sentence case takes over in titled links. So in your nom the sentence would read "...if the main page should" and not as you've instinctively cased it. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I assumed this was an April Fool  :) but oppose, per Randy Kryn; Main Page, in its internal-WP usage is effectively a proper noun (i.e., it is used as a proper noun, not that it actually is). ——SN54129 13:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to Portal:Main (maybe Portal:Welcome) - as the original "portal" and inspiration for that namespace. -- Netoholic @ 13:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose (assuming it's not an April Fool Smiley.png). The main page isn't a typical article, and doesn't have to conform to the same rules and naming conventions as anything else. Changing the name would cause technical work and headaches, for no real benefit.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Amakuru: Most moves require some work, and some require a lot of work, so argument from inertia is rarely a valid response. What we gain is WP:CONSISTENT application of namespace scope and article titling guidelines. This benefits repackagers of Wikipedia content who don't need to manually strip out this page. If we follow my recommendation of moving it to Portal: space, could revitalize usage of that namespace by showing a strong, working example. I hope other benefits can be identified in this process, and that we recognize that the sooner we shrug the remnants of old Wikipedia software limitations, the easier it will be overall. -- Netoholic @ 14:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
    No, the point stands. Changing the most viewed page on the entire project is a waste of time and effort, and crucially it has no benefit, only downsides. This is not an article, and in particular it is not a discussion of main pages in general, it is a specific landing page. Others may have different views, but mine is firmly that this should be rejected.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: This nomination is a serious nom and has nothing to do with April Fool's. Interstellarity (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I too assumed this was an April Fools joke, but as it's not... This is the Main Page, not an article about a specific main page or home pages in general. It's a proper noun. If anything, we should adjust the sidebar to match, not move the page. The idea of moving the page to Portal: namespace has been discussed and rejected on numerous occasions, see this FAQ. Modest Genius talk 14:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a very good April Fools joke. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think this was a joke, and I think it was made in good faith, but (a) I won't go digging thru the archives but I have a vague memory of this being a perennial proposal, which died off maybe 10(?) years ago (b) the benefit/cost ratio on this change is very, very, very close to zero. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's no particular reason to make the move as there's no particular reason general rules should apply to unique cases like the main page, beyond that the proposal didn't even suggest any advantages the move might have. Moving, even with a redirect, such a long-standing and heavily linked-to page should only be considered if there are strong advantages to the move. ApLundell (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is a specific main page, not a main page in general, namely Wikipedia's main page. See Extremely large telescope (a type of telescope) and Extremely Large Telescope (an individual telescope with that name). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:BROKE. --Jayron32 17:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:Solution looking for a problem, +1 to those thinking it was an April Fools joke too. –Davey2010Talk 22:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose (assuming that this isn't an April Fools prank). This is not an article about main pages, so it's not bound by the naming conventions for Wikipedia article titles. Instead, it refers specifically to the main page of Wikipedia, which occupies an arguable place of importance in Wikipedia and of which there is only one and should therefore be considered to be a proper noun and capitalized as much. Also, it seems to me that Main page would be better off as a redirect to Home page than to Main Page because people would likely expect a sentence-case title to refer to an actual article, so having it lead to something else might confuse people, most people trying to access Wikipedia's main page would likely do so through other methods, like clicking the Wikipedia icon in the top-left corner or clicking the link that says Main page (which should probably be changed to Main Page) just below it, and Home page already has a link at the top for people who meant to go to the Main Page. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 14:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Make the Coronavirus pandemic News section more highlighted

I would suggest it be highlighted more through a different colour or bolding around the box. Aeonx (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

We've tried several versions already. The current version gives the best consensus-based balance of not being too distracting and staying in the color scheme of the main page while still being as highlighted as best as possible. --Masem (t) 17:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. It took quite a bit of discussion to get to where we are now, and I don't see a need to make it more prominent than this.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Should Template:Wikipedia languages be added with more language versions?

According to meta stats, each of Cebuano and Waray-Waray has more than 1m articles; Min Nan, Egyptian Arabic, Armenian, Chechen has more 250k articles; and 55 wikipedia versions have more than 50k articles respectively. But most of the above (excluding 13 out of the 55 wikipedia versions) are not in {{Wikipedia languages}}. I know that some of them are not on the list because of stub percentage, active users or else, but maybe we should set up a standard concerning who can be in the list, or it may be not fair for some medium-sized but active Wikipedias. --TongcyDai (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The raw number of articles is meaningless, as some Wikipedia's are created almost entirely by bot, consist entirely of bot-created placeholders, and are virtually useless as a resource. As an extreme case, the Cebuano Wikipedia you mention is virtually exclusively the pet project of a single editor (literally; hit ceb:Special:Random fifty times, check the histories, and it's unlikely you'll find a single page that's ever been edited by a non-bot) and a couple of years ago we seriously considered declaring it unsalvageable and shutting it down completely; at the time of writing it has a whopping 3 participants, although that number did briefly rise to the lofty heights of 4. It's of no benefit to our readers to advertise a useless resource. ‑ Iridescent 13:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
According to the top of this page, I believe this belongs at: "* Wikipedia languages: to propose a change to the list of Wikipedias in other languages" Art LaPella (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
In theory yes, but sending a query there is just sentencing it to linger ignored—that page has a mighty 7 active watchers and averages four pageviews per day. The whole "direct queries to dedicated subpages to reduce clutter on this talkpage" thing is good in theory, but doesn't really work unless there are people monitoring those dedicated subpages. ‑ Iridescent 07:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Does that mean we should fix the misleading instruction? Art LaPella (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Frankly, I'd be tempted to oppose this on the grounds that we should be reducing the amount of main page sidebar spam we force upon innocent readers who have wandered there.
    I don't know how comprehensive a tool it is, but with language preferences, why would someone who wanted to look something up on fi.wp need to come to en.wp to do so... ——SN54129 10:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
    This isn't about the sidebar; it's about the {{Wikipedia languages}} section at the bottom of the main page which lists the major Wikipedias by size. It does serve a valid purpose, in that it allows readers to get an idea of which sister projects are actually active and which are just the preserve of a handful of hobbyists; so (for example) an Indian editor can see at a glance that Hindi Wikipedia isn't worth bothering with and they're probably better sticking to en-wiki. Whether the bot-created pseudowikipedias like Cebuano and Swedish get listed is a perennial source of debate. (The Bots Gone Wild problem on Swedish Wikipedia is so acute that their sidebar has separate "random article" buttons for "genuinely random choice" and "articles that actually have a human editor in their history".) If you're interested, the "depth" column on List of Wikipedias#Detailed list gives a reasonable indication of which Wikipedias are primarily the result of human work and which are a bot-generated Wikidata scrape. ‑ Iridescent 13:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
    Ah, I misunderstood, thanks for clarifying. (As it happens, I think that's the first time I've actually looked south of dyk etc for possibly years!) Do you mean, the Indian editor discovers that the Hindi wiki must have less than 50,000 articles and theefore not be worth going to?
    Also, what's the quality of the bot-generated articles? If they're basic machine translations which regularly convulse anything than the simples articles, I'd be tempted to argue that ~wholly bot-built Wikipedias should themselves be removed. But if, of course the quality is reasonable than that argument doesn't apply. ——SN54129 13:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
ceb:Special:Random, sv:Special:Random, war:Special:Random ("Random article" on Cebuano, Swedish and Waray, the three most heavily bot-created Wikipedias). Judge for yourself. ‑ Iridescent 13:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools#Revoke the Main Page's exemption from the disclosure requirement

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools#Revoke the Main Page's exemption from the disclosure requirement. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: the confusing title is rather misleading. This is a proposal to ban April Fools DYK entries and/or require them to be tagged with {{humour}}. Modest Genius talk 14:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
It's not a proposal to ban April Fools DYK entries, nor would they have to be tagged specifically with {{Humor}}. Please don't mischaracterize, and please keep discussion centralized by commenting at the proposal itself rather than the notice here. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Did you know… section

I noticed that most of the facts in today's Did you know… section seem to rely on intentionally misleading names in order to be surprising, which I think is a bad idea. This is a significant deviation from Did you know… sections of past days. Was this an agreed-upon change?

And I realized that it's already April Fools Day in most of the world just before I was about to submit this. Never mind about what's above. Congratulations on fooling me. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 00:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad you enjoyed it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Was a little disappointed that the whole main page wasn't all tongue in cheek like preceding years.  :( -dashiellx (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it's misleading, despite the holiday, and damages trust in what people see here. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
April Fools Day is over, please correct. --Bernardoni (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I still don't like the idea of deliberately fooling readers. I just don't think that it's worth trying to stop it if it's part of an April Fools prank since the Wikipedia community engages in April Fools pranks every year. It almost seems like clickbait to me, and I especially think that the sixth and tenth items went too far given the prominent position of Wikipedia's Main Page. To me, April Fools pranks are best done within the Wikipedia community, not with the recipients being readers who might not have accounts. However, like I said before, most users would just find it as a harmless April Fools prank, so there's no use trying to oppose it. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 14:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
If you mean the fuck off and sex hooks, they are in keeping with Wikipedia's policy of WP:NOTCENSORED and DYK's tradition of running risque hooks on April Fools Day. They probably won't happen next year as AFD falls on Maundy Thursday just like last year when it fell on Easter. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Many project pages and articles down on many language wikipedias

Main page is throwing the error: [Xou2xQpAMNIAA-9stcIAAACN] 2020-04-06 23:09:58: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError" LetUsNotLoseHearT 23:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Appears to be working now.LetUsNotLoseHearT 23:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
For those wondering what happened, there's an incident report. Short version: an automated script caused a database error at Wikidata, leading to a major failure for all pages (on any project) that were associated with a Wikidata entry. Modest Genius talk 13:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

"Main page" listed at Redirects for discussion

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Main page. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Interstellarity (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Can an admin tag this redirect as an RFD? I can't do it myself because the redirect is fully-protected. I listed it at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_7#Main_page. Interstellarity (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a bad idea if it will be the type that breaks the redirect, and mostly useless if it doesn't. Perhaps notify page watchers by tagging and posting at Talk:Main page? — xaosflux Talk 21:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes indeed it would be good if there was an option not to break the redirect in cases like this where deletion isn't going to happen. I also can't see that its likely that this will be changed-WP:SNOW. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
This redirect gets 10-15,000 hits a day, I'm not sure breaking it is a good idea. Merely posting here should get it plenty of exposure though. Hut 8.5 21:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: Per discussion above. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 02:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Profanity on the main page

closing for two reasons 1) Primary reason is that the item in question is not on the main page. 2) A lesser reason is that discussions of this nature are not going to change existing consensus. We have had several in about a month, and neither has led to any concrete policy to restrict certain words from the main page. A better venue may be to start a discussion/RFC at WP:VPP and generate consensus, but this discussion consists mostly of people hurly incredulity and self-righteousness at the other side, and will not lead to any meaningful policy change. --Jayron32 18:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are we to assume that Wikipedia is an adults only encyclopedia? Could I let my kids browse it as they might any school resource? I think not. Under the "Did you know section?" I found this: "that the essay "It's Decorative Gourd Season, Motherfuckers" has been described as an ode to autumn?" Keep it up and I will have the parents association block wikipedia and various content blockers too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCampaignForRealPhysics (talkcontribs) 23:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes, it's another hilarious jape from the DYK WP:NOTCENSORED crew. Trying to get the policy on the Main Page changed is equivalent to banging your head against a brick wall, though, so I wouldn't bother. Black Kite (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • There's nothing hilarious about perverted adults stealing the childhood of innocents. It's a form of child abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCampaignForRealPhysics (talkcontribs) 00:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • This isn't "Disney's Baby's First Encyclopedia", so I'm not sure why you expect it to be such. Real encyclopedias deal with the real world. Sex, death, and "bad words" included. If you are worried about what your child sees, you should be sitting beside them to explain anything or to back out of things you dind inappropriate. We aren't the parent, YOU are. --Khajidha (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
    Khajidha, but this is the front page, real encyclopedia like Britannica don't have "bad words" and stuff like that on their front pages or on the first page of their books. BrandonXLF (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Britannica, etc have title pages and publishing notes and such that aren't part of the encyclopedia. But when you get to the encyclopedia itself, all bets are off. The Main Page is part of the encyclopedia. If you want our "cover" or "title page", go to the one with just the logo and a search box. --Khajidha (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Part of the encyclopedia perhaps, but out of the scope of NOTCENSORED. As Black Kite mentions, editors are quick to cry NOTCENSORED whenever these type of complaints are made - except that the NOTCENSORED policy applies to articles, which the Main Page is not. A good essay about this subject is Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED and the Main Page. P-K3 (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • My opinion, which I know isn't shared by many, is that stuff like this just undermines Wikipedia's attempts to position itself as a serious encyclopedia. Yes, there are times when "bad" words are unavoidable and even necessary even on the Main Page, but sometimes I think there is a tendency to place things such as this for the sake of it. Black Kite (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Should Wikipedia ignore the realities of modern language, and pretend they don't exist? If the answer is "Yes", precisely whose standards do we follow? Yours or mine? HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • They're not my standards (frankly, I swear like a trooper sometimes); as I said though, I do wonder if such "amusing" entries are a good look for a website which presents itself as a serious educational resource. Black Kite (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • My opinion is that the "trivia nugget" format of DYK is not encyclopedic in nature, but that has nothing to do with whether it uses profanity. --Khajidha (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
    I am offended by the admiration of organized religion on the Main Page right now. Will we be accommodating my sensibilities as well?
Don't forget the Nazi flag and the violence (Lincoln's assassination). Where do we stop? Not censored should mean not censored. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@TheCampaignForRealPhysics:, it is understood that with the covid19 keeping many kids indoors, there would be the odd kid searching through Wikipedia and 'stumbling' across profanity. It is up to the kids' parents/guardians to keep their home internet safe. It is advised that they only allow their kids to access the following alternative encyclopedias:
@TheCampaignForRealPhysics:, you are also advised to install Net Nanny.com on your home PC to ensure your own kids comply with your regulations.
--Krýsuvík2020 (talk) 09:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Krýsuvík2020, whay does Britannica have to do with "UK Kids"? Not everything with a "brit–" prefix is British; Britannica is an American publication which has had no links to the UK for the past 119 years. ‑ Iridescent 09:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

While it's well known for time immemorial that certain aspects of the main page are usually not up to encyclopedic par, I do wonder what this so-called parent is really doing or thinking allowing their children onto the internet. There are certainly far worse things children can find than a "bad word". In a sense, I do hope this "parent" does achieve a wholesale ban on Wikipedia by snowflake groups. At least then we wouldn't have to go through this charade every so often. I miss Jenna Jameson. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@TheCampaignForRealPhysics:, if your 'kids' are aged 18 or over, then you can recommend them to use Conservapedia where there is no profanity. --Krýsuvík2020 (talk) 10:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

There is an awful lot of worse things to see on wikipedia than some profanity. You could easily start censoring the main page of images that contain anything slightly racey. What's also bad - nudity? I have an FAC that could run a sentence on the winner doing a nude press conference. Should this be removed on a TFA? In this case, it's only a word. If someone is allowing their child online unsupervised, I guarentee they can find much worse in one google search (other search engines are available). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that "profanity" (a word uncommon in my land anyway) harms kids? If it does, we shouldn't send them to school. HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Is this another of those "Oh, won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?" complaints? I do feel that people sometimes need to remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and there is no right not to be offended. Indeed a lot of the sweary or controversial content we feature is not just for the sake of it, it is to showcase some of Wikipedia's newest work and designed to encourage further discussion and improvements. Look how well it worked for the likes of the fag on the crag for example. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  • If you have a problem with profanity, rather than complaining, you should use a profanity filter browser plugin such as this one: [6]. It blocks out offensive words from all webpages. 59.95.69.104 (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I actually find this comment to be the most helpful of all. There are so many tools at the disposal of parents who are anxious about letting their children on the Internet. It should be incumbent on the user to customize their experience with the means at hand, rather than Wikipedia to water down its content to adhere to arbitrary cultural norms. It might not work on public school computers that block installation of apps, but hey... Schools are institutions of learning.--WaltCip (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 22 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: After consultation with an administrator, I am closing this discussion. It clearly has no chance of passing. I am sorry that I frustrated all of you for creating 3 discussions within the past 3 weeks. I really want to make things right here and I believe closing this discussion is the right thing to do to not waste any more time discussing it. I hope you all accept my apologies. Interstellarity (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)



Main PageMain page – I have reopening the discussion that occurred on April Fools although not many people took it seriously. Here is the link to it. It was meant to be a serious nomination. In this RFC, there is an emerging consensus not to rename the link in the sidebar to title case. For these reasons, I am proposing that this be sentence case to be consistent with the consensus there. Interstellarity (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  • The rejection of this idea 3 weeks ago (I took the liberty of bolding your link to it above; I didn't see it the first time. Hope that's OK) was not just because people didn't think it was serious. It was also unanimously rejected and snow-closed based on the merits too. I don't see the benefit to proposing this yet again. It is not practical (or desired) to rename this page. it is not practical (or desired) to change the case in the navbar. It is not a problem that they don't match. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the exact same reason I opposed last time. Nothing has changed in 3 weeks. Are we going to have yet another discussion in 3 more weeks? --Jayron32 18:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. My opinion is unchanged, and I cannot see any productive reason to repeat a discussion we had three weeks ago. Modest Genius talk 18:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reason we rejected your pointlessly disruptive proposal three weeks ago, and for the same reason we rejected your pointlessly disruptive proposal two weeks ago. If this isn't into disrupting Wikipedia to make a point territory yet, you can certainly see it from here. ‑ Iridescent 18:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the previous discussion, the RFC hasn't been closed yet anyway so could change but anyway its common to have an upper case topic written in lower case in text such as The Beatles is often as "the Beatles" mid text. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to Portal:Welcome (perhaps Portal:Main) - as the original "portal" and inspiration for that namespace. This page is a remnant of ancient versions of the software and only argument from inertia continues to prevent us from ripping off the bandage and moving this to an appropriate namespace and remove the self-referential "page" part of the title. -- Netoholic @ 20:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see we're instigating our own version of Groundhog Day here. Things must be boring in lockdown (for those of us fortunate enough to be in one). The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron and Iridescent, and start making snowballs. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw)  20:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal of interest

Watchers of this talk page may be interested in this proposal about creating a new usergroup for main page edits. This is the same proposal on which opinions were solicited here some months ago. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Addition of Zafar Rasheed Bhatti in recent deaths

A senior journalist from Pakistan Zafar Rasheed Bhatti died from Covid-19 yesterday be added in recent deaths section. USaamo (talk · contribs) (uSaamo 00:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC))

Recent deaths should be discussed at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. Art LaPella (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)